I believe the majority has spoken. Given this is a democracy, the country will (for the most part) be governed by what the majority deem desirable/acceptable.

If governing based on a majority opinion is unacceptable to you, perhaps you could move to another country that more closely governs to your liking? Perhaps it would reduce your stress and increase your quality of life...

Another fallacy. The US is a republic, not a democracy. We use a democratic method as a way to vote for our elected representatives.

The word democracy does not appear in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.

Benjamin Franklin quotes:
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

Dare I ask what is so funny? If you're going to write a "republicans are dumb" response, then please read the rest of my posts on this thread first. Thanks.

Well, you argued that Romney would run the country as a business and not as a "humanitarian society". What indicates to you this is true or even beneficial. Romney's short term as governor didn't seem particularly business like and his campaign wasn't run as a corporation either—some have even called it a rich guy's fiefdom that threw money at problems like advertising buys rather than making sound financial decisions. And, secondly, what would a government run like a corporation look like?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dmunjal

Another fallacy. The US is a republic, not a democracy. We use a democratic method as a way to vote for our elected representatives.

The word democracy does not appear in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence....

From your article:

Quote:

...By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy. However, there are examples of "pure democracy" at work in the United States today that would probably trouble the Framers of the Constitution if they were still alive to see them. Many states allow for policy questions to be decided directly by the people by voting on ballot initiatives or referendums.

Quote:

...Benjamin Franklin quotes:
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

Yeah, look at the quality of your politicians. They are far better than any other country in the world.

It's gone from being a backwater in the 1960's to being one of the world's richest country. It has excellent transport, good entertainment, good food, low crime, good education, good and cheap healthcare etc. etc.

And it doesn't have any natural resources other than its port. And rather than having ~100% of GDP in debt like most other rich countries it has a sovereign wealth fund. Also given its position it has to spend a lot on defence.

Sure its use of the death penalty and its freedoms leave something to be desired, but still.

That's due to the work of the previous generation of politicians, the one who came in with little rewards and our country mire in massive problems. The new generation of politicians were just cruising along thinking everything can be put on auto-pilot. Look at the ******* up of the recent policies we had. One good example is our property price, for the last 10 years our average pay increase only by ~10%, and our public housing cost increase by >100%.

After reading through all this in the end it doesn't matter which one if President for most of us fiscally. Obama wants to raise taxes 3% on income over $250,000 so only $3k a year more per $100k than they are paying now. Not a big difference...

People say they are "fiscally conservative but socially liberal"... well I say I'm socially liberal first and the hell with the fiscal crap because there isn't much difference except for possibly Ron Paul or Gary Johnson (not sure why you all love Paul over Johnson) but then again they aren't socially liberal enough and that's more important to me. Gay rights, women's rights, racism, healthcare, drug policy, and religious tolerance all had a clear choice in this election and are more important to me.

I would have voted for Obama if I did vote (my father was dying that day...) especially when he got some balls and supported gay marriage -- I still can't believe he did that I mean regardless of whether you are homophobic or not he took a real position and didn't waver after that point... I got a lot of respect for him that day. (A question: If you accept the fact that gay people exist wouldn't gay marriage be a conservative idea??)

The tax scheme the Democrats are planning with the help of the Republicans is not as simple as you have been led to believe. Every working and tax-paying American earning less or more than $250, 000 will be paying more taxes, specially if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire:http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sand...liff-stalemate

I understand what you mean. I'm with you on most of that. I hate most politicians. There are only a few who I truly respect who have been consistent in their mission and message to the public. However, you truncated my post a little to make it seem like I was pro Romney all the way, which I'm not. I was framing Romney in the context of a "Romney or Obama, who would you rather have?" scenario.

I'm with you on the nasty politicians who forever see themselves as more entitled than the general public that they're supposed to represent. Go libertarian. Go Ron Paul. Too bad he's retiring, sigh.

haha. sorry i read more into your post than intended. i think a lot of people actually believe that politicians are idealistic and "issues"-oriented, when the only issue that really matters is money. they swirl around in high-power, elite, wealthy circles and laugh at the general public's naivete in private (a'la George Bush's quote about the "have's" and the "have mores" being his base) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn4daYJzyls
Like you (I think), I don't favor either major party. It's all the same. Now Libertarian, that would be interesting! Do you think Goldman Sachs, Exxon, et al, would allow that?

Obama is so inept at his job and so out of touch with business that he needs to call on CEOs to tell him what to do.

America is full of fools, Romney was our last hope... Hello collaps of the dollar... Thanks Oboma/fools.

Gee, is every President inept in your mind because they call in a general from the military for advice too? No one sitting in that chair is going to know everything about everything and be a jack of all trades. NO ONE.

If he doesn't take people's advice, he's aloof. If he does, he's inept. Really...make up your mind.

Either compared to the economic position at the time they weren't poorly paid, or chances are they were creaming something off the top.

Unfortunately, this is something I will probably not know, perhaps years after they passed away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

And have they attempted to do anything about it?

In Britain this has been going on for thirty years, and literally nothing has been done.

It's a direct result of their recent policy of opening up immigration to push up economic growth, from a population of ~4million 10 years ago to a current 5.3m now. The main issue isn't the immigration but that they did not prepare our infrastructure for it. Trains breakdown become frequent (Privatised train company), Transportation price is up (We have to pay to get approval to drive a car, right now, it's ~US$77k for a 2L car in addition to the cost of the car), Housing price spiral out of control. Hospitals become overcrowded.

They are now desperately trying to build more houses, introduce measures to curb speculation etc, but none seems to work for long

I'm not opposed to paying good money for the government. But unfortunately, that is not the key to picking good leaders.

If you have more trains and more lines then there will be more breakdowns, even if the trains themselves are no less reliable. Singapore also has had to build up expertise for maintaining the trains as unlike other places it only really got any railways in 1987.

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelneo

Transportation price is up (We have to pay to get approval to drive a car, right now, it's ~US$77k for a 2L car in addition to the cost of the car)

The alternative to this, as in every other city in the world, is bumper to bumper traffic .

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelneo

They are now desperately trying to build more houses, introduce measures to curb speculation etc, but none seems to work for long

At least they are trying to do something. This is also a massive issue in South East England, the bay area and Manhattan in the US and certainly in the UK literally nothing as been done.

There are lots of parts of London where a three bedroom property is basically unaffordable by the young unless you are a successful banker.

__________________Perhaps this is not such a bad idea. Can anyone prove that many politicians aren't the offspring of a jackass? - rdowns

The tax scheme the Democrats are planning with the help of the Republicans is not as simple as you have been led to believe. Every working and tax-paying American earning less or more than $250, 000 will be paying more taxes, specially if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire:http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sand...liff-stalemate

Did you read the article you're quoting? That's a tax increase if nothingVis done on the fiscal cliff. Not "the democrats tax scheme" as you said. Key part of the article:

Quote:

if Congress does not reach an agreement on the fiscal cliff tax issues during the lame-duck session, according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation.

The tax scheme the Democrats are planning with the help of the Republicans is not as simple as you have been led to believe. Every working and tax-paying American earning less or more than $250, 000 will be paying more taxes, specially if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire:

Maybe this isn't a bad thing. People have been given too good of a deal for too long, and now they don't want to give it up. What would things be like if all these cuts weren't given in the first place? People would have gone on being none the wiser. But, now that they have had them for some time, they adjusted accordingly and don't want to give up the ride.

Like I've said before, it's like going into Best Buy on the Saturday after Thanksgiving and saying "they raised the prices on TV's since yesterday!!!"

__________________
A lack of planning on your part should not constitute an emergency on mine.

I never said I supported Mitt. Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm a libertarian.

That said, Romney would have run the country more like a business instead of a humanitarian society, which is what needs to happen. This made him the better option. He wasn't the optimal candidate, but I think he understood that the government is too big, and doesn't do a good job at running things.

We're on the highway to Greece people. The government isn't the answer. They're the cause.

Libertarians unite

So irritating to be assumed to be a republican because I don't support Obama

So irritating to be assumed to be a republican because I don't support Obama

This happens quite often and it's unfortunate because it illustrates the binary thinking our politics are mired in. You're either "with us or against us" to use an unfortunate phrase.

However, I think this happens often to libertarians because they criticize the President or promote someone like Romney using what are essentially conservative, Republican talking points.

So, in the case of fiscal conservatism, there's a tendency to talk about Romney as the savior, but he was just going to tickle the nobs a little, putting more money into defense (a lot more money actually) and dropping funding for things like PBS. Meanwhile, Romney wanted to promote social conservative ideals, like fighting gay marriage by protecting DOMA and ending abortion.

Gee, is every President inept in your mind because they call in a general from the military for advice too? No one sitting in that chair is going to know everything about everything and be a jack of all trades. NO ONE.

If he doesn't take people's advice, he's aloof. If he does, he's inept. Really...make up your mind.

You don't know anything about me, so don't try to put words or thoughts in my mind.